Few Editorials Find Fault with the Bombing of Beirut (E&P)

[chill_wind]

Editorial response scandelous!


"It's one thing to endorse Israel's right to defend itself and retaliate. It's another to remain silent on the crime of causing mass destruction and civilian deaths in neutral areas of Lebanon."

By Greg Mitchell

(July 18, 2006)

(...)

The editorial response is all the more scandalous because this is not some distant conflict where America is merely a third party. The U.S. is Israel’s prime (sometimes virtually its only) major ally, and the funder or producer of much of the armaments landing on Lebanon – though you’d never know of this special link from reading most of these editorials.

(...)

Just months ago, many of these same editorial pages, along with our president, were hailing the growing evidence of democracy in Lebanon, calling it a new beacon for hope. Yet now one has to look far and wide (as E&P has) to find more than a few tut-tuts about Israel’s excessive air campaign in any editorial.

Many editorials carry outright misinformation; others act as if the history of this conflict can be measured in weeks, not decades. And few op-ed columnists have condemned the over-the-top Israeli behavior. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times managed to not even mention Beiruit in his Wednesday column rightly ripping Hezbollah.

But he's far from alone: Few of the key liberal bloggers -- usually quick to condemn civilian casualties in Iraq -- have taken up the issue.


(...)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002841514